The selection of the US Olympiad team members (men and women) and captains has too many times been a political process instead of doing things for the best interest of U.S. Chess or this nation. Most board members have no or little experience regarding this matter. There have been proposals to make things even more complicated, more controversial and perhaps more political. Here is the response from one board member this morning regarding this matter. This was sent to all board members, some chess politicians and many of the top U.S. Grandmasters:
Dear all,
This is only my personal belief and I have not discussed with anyone about this. I hope I do not offend anyone for making the following suggestion:
I think there should be a professional Olympiad committee to explore the various options (or system and not to select the team). This committee should include 5 members, the most successful / experience people in this area.
My recommendation is to ask 5 (or even 7) from the group below to head up this committee. They all have strong Olympiad credential and experience. At least two members of this committee should be women.
– GM Yasser Seirawan
– GM Joel Benjamin
– GM Alex Onischuk
– GM Susan Polgar
– IM John Donaldson
– GM Lubosh Kavalek
– GM Gata Kamsky
– IM Irina Krush
– GM Gregory Kaidanov
– IM Anna Zatonskih, etc.
(I did not put WGM Jennifer Shahade only because she is a USCF employee and I am not sure of the conflict of interest issue)
Chess politicians and the EB should not be involved at all as they can only make things worse, not better. Being on the EB does not give you the qualification to make this kind of decision which could impact U.S. chess for many years to come.
Even being the captain and business manager for the most successful Women’s Olympiad team ever in 2004 and also being a board member, I would gladly yield to the people who are far more experience and successful.
There is one thing I would like to caution everyone. We also have to pay attention to the new Olympiad format. The team will now consist of 5 players (not 6 for men and 4 for women as in the past). There will be 4 players competing in each match and there is ONLY 1 sub. There is much less room to maneuver and the wrong fifth player WILL impact the entire team negatively. The number of rounds has also been reduced. Therefore, there is even less margin for errors.
One of the biggest problems in chess (especially in the U.S.) is there are too many people who do not have sufficient knowledge / successful track records in specific areas wanting to give their 2 cents. This is the recipe for disaster as we have seen the results for years.
We should allow the professional players to have a strong voice in the area that they know a lot about. The same goes with scholastic chess, Internet chess, college chess or other areas of chess. The board members should be the facilitators and not be political advocators. It is time for a new USCF.
Best regards,
Paul Truong
My mens team is Kamsky, Onischuk, Nakamura, Shabalov, and Shulman. It’s harder to pick the womens because you don’t know if our best players will play. But count in Irina Krush for sure.
Agreed. Board members should leave real business to the professionals.
This is a great proposal, Paul.
You raise a good point that the current EB members with one or two possible exceptions don’t really represent the constituency of professional/titled chess players. With one or two exceptions, they don’t really represent the scholastic constituency either, though the scholastic council does a good job in that area. So what constituency does the EB represent? The middle aged to older club player which demographics tell us is a dying breed.
Whereas I certainly want Susan Polgar on our Olympiad team, with respect I do NOT want her on the committee that decides the composition of that team, so long as she is on the USCF EB.
Regards, zdrakec
I would definitely want Polgar on the committee. She’s the most successful olympiad record in the US. I wouldn’t want Goichberg to have any involvement whatsoever.
This EB represents Sam Sloan and company. I like Paul’s idea.
Michael Irvin has had success in the Super Bowl. Would I let him pick my team’s roster? Heh.
Depoliticize the process. I would suggest a committee of one: John Donaldson.
To anon @ 3:25:
Board members Polgar, Truong, Bauer, Berry, Channing, & Hough have (AFAIK) never associated themselves with Sloan’s disreputable conduct as a Board member.
Whatever use Mr. Goichberg has made of Sloan in the past, he has vigorously & publicly disassociated himself from Sloan’s Board conduct.
One should not be careless with the facts when the reputation of others are at stake.
The Olympiad is not important. Let’s forget it and focus on scholastic chess.
Let the pros decide on a system and move on. I like the idea of the professional committee deciding on the method.
Great idea.
Forget it, Goichberg and his gang won’t ever relinquish their power. The USCF and CCA will go down with him and his ego.
Does the uscf even have enough money to send teams next year?
No need to worry about the Olympiad or US Championship. There’s always Foxwoods and World Open. GMs don’t need good conditions? We all just need to pay CCA and Goichberg and all problems are solved.
NAKA!!!
Saw him wandering around the K-12 in houston but didn’t get a chance to ask him why.
How many of the proposed players were born in America? Now you see why people don’t want to pay money to field an olympic team.